Now on Pay-Per-View: God vs Science, The Smackdown

In the category of How To Think About Things: There’s a lively God vs Science debate going on in Rob Knop’s Scienceblog, Galactic Interactions. (Check out So I’m A Christian Shoot Me and What Is The Purpose Of Religion ). I’m interested because it highlights what, to me, is a new viewpoint in the argument. The more extreme stand here isn’t from Fundamental Christian Creationists; it’s from Evangelical Atheist Scientists.

While I knew that “respected” Fundamentalist Christians have long been preaching that “Science denies the existance of God!” I chalked it up to their ignorance about science. But now, there are apparently respected scientists who oppose and even attack not just Creationist-Psuedo-Science (which i expect and appreciate) but religion as a whole. Some even attempt to disprove “God” through intellectual and philosophical arguments, and publish in mainstream popular books.

I’m troubled.

It’s not because my personal beliefs are threatened; they aren’t.

I’m troubled because expert segments of both the religious and scientific communities are speaking with authority about fields outside of their own expertise. These these same experts are applying their own methods (whether its science or biblical interpretation) to questions those methods cannot answer.

I’d long since accepted that Creationist types would do that — and I believed it was because they didn’t understand science or critical thinking methods.

But the Atheistic Scientists know better, or should. Critical thinking is their strength. The scientific method is their bread and butter. Science can’t disprove the esoteric concepts in religion, and religion can’t use science to prove those same concepts, either. You can’t apply the scientific method to something which by definition is outside of the natural world. I’m at a loss to explain this new trend of trying to disprove religion as a whole, and giving the impression that it is science.

Personally, I’m both deeply spiritual (ie, religious, but without belonging to specific organized sect) and fairly well grounded in science. I think in both concrete and abstract terms. I use both critical thinking and poetic thought processes to solve problems and reach conclusion about the world around me.

So I’ve always seen Science and Religion as non-competing institutions. They both attempt to describe the world around us, but with different languages, methods and goals. Studying them teaches different things, and each brings different perspectives and new information to me. I don’t see them in conflict or competition, and I certainly don’t see them as mutually exclusive.

There are, of course, some tenants in some sects of some religions that are in conflict with some current scientific conclusions in some fields of science. But by the time you sort through all of those conditional statements, the number of “some people” who will discover deep seated conflicts is relatively small - and many of the apparent conflicts can be solved through study of *both* science and religion, and/or a simple “I don’t know.”

“God” is not a scientific hypothesis, a psychiatric condition or a mathematical proof. At the least, “God” is an untestable, unmeasurable concept, an unsolvable mystery by definition. Interpretation of religious texts (Biblical or other) is not a science - it’s a literary, theological, poetic, and historical art.

Discovering and describing our human nature, our origins, and the world around us is an ever-evolving process. It’s aprocess that involves many disciplines, including religion and evolutionary science, as well as philosophy, music, art, mathematics, poetry, social sciences, and many, many other areas of study.

The whole thing has me wanting to give Evangelical Scientific Atheists the same smack upside the head that I’ve often wanted to give Fundamentalist Creationist Christians. I’d start with the reminder that science is not a religion (Smack!) not even an atheistic religion (Smack). I’d follow up with a reminder that science isn’t supposed to answer religious questions (smack) so stop claiming it does when you know better!! (double smack). I’d end with a final reminder: having the loudest, most opinionated and controversial voice on a subject does not make their voice either right, or representative of the majority. (quadruple smack)

Thus endeth my own loud, opinionated, and controversial smackdown.